Worth a try

OPINION

Our position: The growth-management bill is good enough for Gov. Bush's signature.

May 26, 2005|By Fuchsia

Negotiations went down to the wire, a compromise reached in the closing minutes of this year's legislative session. As presented to weary lawmakers, the 137-page bill promised to radically improve the state's approach to growth management while offering local governments financial aid to help rectify poor growth decisions in the past.

Will the final product live up to those ambitious expectations? Perhaps. But is it a worthy foundation upon which to build? Absolutely.

In a very broad sense, the complex rewrite of the state's 20-year-old growth-management laws goes a long way toward meeting the growth-management goals laid out early in the session by Gov. Jeb Bush. He's right: Local officials shouldn't approve development unless government services such as roads, schools and drinking water are available.

Mr. Bush should give this measure the force of law -- albeit with a single caveat. As strong as the bill is, the governor should continue a dialogue with lawmakers to give it even more teeth next year.

The law will be meaningless, for example, if it's not aggressively enforced by state oversight agencies, primarily the state Department of Community Affairs. DCA has played a similar oversight role in the past. But a muddled mission and skeletal review staff nurtured a rubber-stamp culture at the agency. That will have to change if this law is to work.

The House, too, refused this year to give local governments the financing flexibility needed to address a multibillion-dollar backlog of road, water and school improvements. Florida has $35 billion worth of transportation needs, alone. And while the bill calls for the state to spend some $9.1 billion to help local governments catch up, it will barely make a dent.

Local government officials responsible for implementing the reforms should be included in the conversation, too.

The bill, for example, allows developers to negotiate with local governments a "proportionate share" payment for the impact that growth might have on a community. But it's unclear what proportionate share really means. For instance, is it an addition -- or a substitute -- for the impact fee many governments already collect to offset growth costs? That needs to be clarified.

The measure also could prompt local governments to allow gridlock on local -- as opposed to state -- roads instead of rejecting a development or requiring up-front payments for improvements. That loophole should be closed.

Fortunately, the bill anticipates the need for adjustments with the creation of several ongoing commissions to recommend changes -- another plus.

Since he first was elected governor, Mr. Bush has said that better managing growth in the state was a top priority. With a few tweaks, the governor is well on his way to fulfilling that goal.